Hi Folks,

Today I am trying to get caught up on a number of issues related
to the anarcho-leninist debate on the state. The following is an
essay posted by our own Joe Golowka to my "Finding the Confidence
to Build the Future". My essay (to which Joe is replying) has
not yet been formatted for email. It is available on the web at:
http://struggle.net/alds/part_05_content.htm

I am also copying this post to the anarcho-marxist list at yahoo.

Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)

____________________________________________________________
comment on Part 5 • Tuesday • 17-Jun-2003 • 7:23 pm • # 115-7508
• Joe R. Golowka

It is not true that the overwhelming majority of all anarchists
are infected with the "Scarlet O'Hara syndrome." Anarchists have
written many books over the past 150 years describing how an
anarchist society could look like. "Conquest of Bread" by Peter
Kropotkin is one of my favorites. For a description of what an
anarchist society would look like I refer Ben to Section I of "an
anarchist FAQ" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html If you
were to ask your questions about what an anarchist society would
look like on the anarchist message boards at
http://flag.blackened.net the "Scarlet O'Hara Syndrome" would not
be the overwhelming response.

With regard to the economy, each workplace is run by it's own
worker assembly which meets regularly and makes all major
decisions about the workplace. Everyone has an equal say in those
decisions, which are made using either consensus or direct
democracy (or some mixture of the two). Assemblies divvy up the
tasks and plan what they are going to do. Historically they have
also elected a factory committee that takes care of
administration and coordination. The factory committees simply
implement policy decided by the assembly where decision-making
power stayed.

Coordination of the economy can be done through a system of
horizontal networks or worker councils. The tradition way of
doing this is for each assembly to assign a contact person(s)
(sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other contact
people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate things
with. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each
contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by
the assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue.
The contact people would be given binding instructions,
committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their
assembly, within which they would have to act. If at any time
they violate their mandate their assembly would instantly recall
them and their decisions revoked. This differs from
representative institutions in that decision making power stays
in the assemblies whereas representatives can make whatever
decisions they want and have authority over others. Contact
people simply convey and implement the positions of their
assemblies; they do not have any authority or special privileges.
Meetings of contact people are sometimes called workers councils.
Councils are organized from the bottom up, with control staying
in the assemblies. They are not hierarchical organizations but
simply coordinate the activities of the assemblies without
authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized
confederations and networks. Decision-making power stays with the
assemblies upon which the councils are based - the assemblies
would be the core of any organization. This can be done on
whatever levels are needed - regional, industry-based, etc. This
forms a self-organizing economy based on decentralized planning.
The spokescouncils used by many in the "anti-globalization"
movement are an example of one way this can be done.

The information revolution greatly aids network forms of
organizing such as this by making it easier for different parts
of the network to communicate with each other and share
information. Activists are already using this, sometimes
unknowingly, against the dominant hierarchical and market
institutions. It was the use of networks and netwar that made
Seattle such a success, IMO. As one RAND publication put it "The
information revolution is leading to the rise of network forms of
organization in which small, previously isolated groups can
communicate, link up, and conduct coordinated joint actions as
never before. This in turn is leading to a new mode of
conflict--"netwar"--in which the protagonists depend on using
network forms of organization, doctrine, strategy, and
technology. Many actors across the spectrum of conflict--from
terrorists, guerrillas, and criminals who pose security threats,
to social activists who may not--are developing netwar designs
and capabilities." http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR994/
This network form of organization can be used not only to attack
capitalism & the state but also to run society after they have
been overthrown.

Ben's "first law" conflicts with his claim that "it will likely
take at least half a century or more (starting from the time that
bourgeois rule is broken) before humanity learns how to" run a
classless society. If a good vision for how a classless society
would be run has already been developed, and most people
understand and believe in it, then we have already learned how a
classless society would be run. All that is necessary is to
implement it, which shouldn't take more then a few years. If the
proletariat can take state power overnight why can it not take
over the economy in six months? Why should the political sphere
be different from the economic? There are no examples of the
proletariat running a state (even for just six months) but there
are examples of the proletariat running the economy.

Ben asks "disagreements will exist not simply between individuals
but also on a larger scale: between larger units (ie: co-ops,
communes and collectives, etc). How will these disputes be
resolved"

There are a number of ways disputes between collectives can be
resolved. If it is feasible the members of the different
collectives can simply hold a joint assembly where they can
discuss and debate whatever issue is to be decided. The use of
modern communications technology makes this even easier. They can
come to a decision using either consensus or direct democracy or
a mix of the two. They get together and vote on it. They can have
a referendum. This can also be done though the use of contact
people as outlined above. Another option is for the two groups to
agree on a neutral arbitrator (which could be an individual or a
group) to hear both sides and come to a solution. "The people"
may not always know the best thing to do but they're more likely
to come to decisions that benefit most people than having some
elite vanguard of professional revolutionaries boss everyone
around.

Ben asks, "How will the working class minimize disruptions and
keep supply chains running?"

The working class will directly take over the means of production
and place them under worker self-management using the system of
worker assemblies and factory committees described early. At
first the pre-existing supply chains would probably be
maintained. They will, however, be placed under worker's control.
The more rapidly this is done the less disruptions there will be.
Once worker self-management has been established the supply
chains will be reorganized so as to be more beneficial to the
population as a whole and to be more efficient. This would
involve ending the use of the market and instead using networks,
as described above, to coordinate production.

Ben correctly notes that the factory committees in the Russian
Revolution, with a few exceptions, largely maintained the
pre-existing supply lines - they produced the same things for the
same customers, etc. At first it is likely that the takeover of
industry by the workers would do exactly that. Once they have
taken over their own workplaces and restarted production,
however, I believe they should take this a step further,
federating together and then reorganizing production & supply
chains. They should form networks to coordinate their activities
through spokescouncils or some other kind of non-hierarchical
coordination. The factory committees in the Russian Revolution
did not do this. Instead the Bolsheviks subordinated them to a
centralized state planning council and later abolished them.

The Spanish Revolution provides a better example of
self-management and coordination between different self-managed
collectives. Ben refers to an article by Joseph Green that is
replete with distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentation of
the views of the Spanish anarchists. I'll focus just on the
distortions concerning the coordination of the collectives since
that is what Ben refers to here (if I have time I may address
Green's other half-truths later). It is true that _initially_
market relations continued to exist in Revolutionary Spain.
Self-managed collectives sold most of their products on the
market, at first. This was a system of mutualism, not capitalism,
because wage-labor was abolished even though market relations
continued to exist. It is also true that there were inequalities
between collectives during this initial period, though this was
much less inequality than exists in any capitalist society
(state-capitalist or otherwise). This was due to both
pre-existing inequalities in the workplaces that were
expropriated (some workplaces were wealthier than others) and, I
would argue, the tendency of markets, even non-capitalist
markets, to generate inequalities.

What Joseph does not mention is that this was only true in the
initial period; there were several forms of coordination between
collectives established in the months following expropriation.
This started on a local basis and later built on a larger basis.
Immediately after the civil war started forms of loose
coordination appeared to fight the war. Many collectives
converted their workplaces to war production and others sent
either money or useful materials (such as food) to both the
militias fighting the war and the collectives on war production.
Supply committees were set up. In some cases there were joint
assemblies with the workers of multiple workplaces. Often
industries were reorganized so as to be more efficient, shutting
down inefficient plants and using more efficient ones more fully.
Later greater coordination was established between collectives
using systems similar to the spokescouncil system outlined above,
although the specifics varied and different forms were used by
different collectives. Regional federations were formed such the
Levant Federation of Collectives formed just a few weeks after
the revolution began and in June 1937 a Plenum of peasant
collectives was held. Equalization funds were established to
reduce the inequality between collectives and sometimes there
were direct transfers of resources between collectives. There
were even instances of large groups of people moving from one
collective to another in order to help out the poorer
collectives. All of this was organized from the bottom up, with
decision-making power in the hands of the assemblies.

Market relations during the revolution didn't reemerge because of
the nature of the collectives. They survived the initial
expropriation and then spent a year declining. Marxists launched
an offensive against the collectives in mid-1937 in order to
implement state-capitalism, after which market relations did
begin to reemerge. Despite the incomplete nature of the Spanish
revolution it is still vastly superior to state-capitalism and
provides an example proving that anarcho-collectivism can work.
Even during the initial period of mutualism the collectives were
economically productive as many eyewitness accounts attest. Many
first-hand observers who were hostile towards anarchism, such as
Borkenau, admitted this.

We build the shell of the new world within the shell of the old.
Prior to and during the revolution the proletariat organizes
against capitalism and the state on the same principles the
future society should be organized around. The means one uses
determines the ends you get. If you attempt to change society
through using a vanguard party to seize state power you will
probably end up with a one-party state. If you attempt to change
society using confederations of general assemblies you will
probably end up with a society based on networks of popular
assemblies. The proletariat self-organizes on a non-hierarchical
basis against capitalism and those same non-hierarchical
organizations take over once the revolution has destroyed
capitalism and the state. This is not an evolutionary approach;
these organizations should fight against the capitalists and wage
revolution. The initial framework of anarchy is created under
capitalism & statism and as a result of the struggle against
them. These organizations often arise spontaneously as a natural
outcome of the class struggle. In Argentina popular assemblies,
and networks between them, have appeared spontaneously. The
struggle against hierarchy is the school of anarchy. The same
process of using non-hierarchical organizations to wage class war
brings about a new consciousness as workers become used to
organizing in such a way. By the time the revolution is completed
most workers will already have experience organizing and
coordinating their actions on a large scale without hierarchy.

Ben asks "in your economy-without-a-state: • (a) do you plan to
use money to regulate relations between the different economic
enterprises, co-ops and so forth? • (b) Or do you plan to use
some kind of trade or barter system? • (c) Or some kind of labor
hour certificate? • (d) Or will you make use of some other kind
of exchange-based system? • (e) Or do have in mind some kind of
central planning system that will not make use of state
authority? • (f) Or are you thinking of a "gift economy" (ie: as
I assert is the inevitable destination of human economies). • (g)
Or are these questions something that you prefer, like the famous
Scarlet O'Hara, not to think about today?"

I would prefer libertarian communism - which is more or less what
you call a gift economy. Immediately after the means of
production has been abolished it is likely that money or
something similar to money (trade, barter, labor certificates,
etc.) would be used but I'd like to see that abolished as rapidly
as possible. I see no reason why this cannot be done at most in a
matter of years, not decades. If a lengthy transition period were
needed I see know reason why it cannot be some non-communist form
of anarchism such as mutualism or collectivism. Despite what Ben
claims it is entirely possible to have money without a state or
central bank. Money predates central banks by many centuries.
Initially whatever money existed prior to the revolution
(dollars, Euros, etc.) can be used. Collectives could switch to
"labor certificates" or some kind of barter system instead if
they found it effective. I see no reason why the use of "labor
certificates" would automatically result in a lower productivity
of labor. Those few collectives during the Spanish revolution
that used similar systems did not result in lower productivity of
labor. In addition productivity of labor does not have to be
higher then under the present system for life to be better for
the average worker. Given the elimination of the immense
inequalities that exist under capitalism there could be a
considerable reduction in the total wealth produced and the
average worker (thanks to the greater equality) would still be
better off. The Spanish Revolution proves that a self-organizing
economy that uses money is quite possible and is much better for
most workers than capitalism of any time. A half-century long
transition period in state-capitalism is unnecessary.

Ben asks "can you explain how you believe the working class will
be able to restrict the ability of the bourgeoisie (or former
bourgeoisie, or aspiring future bourgeoisie) to use their
economic power to saturate the mass media with their garbage?"

All of the means of production, including media corporations,
will be expropriated. They will no longer be able to use their
property to magnify their voices and drown out other voices
because they won't have any property. Their voice will not be any
louder than anyone else's.